The worrying aftermath of a terrorist attack

The latest terrorist attack in London is another appalling example of how vulnerable we are in a big city to determined fanatics who decide to commit acts of hatred in broad daylight. What is inevitable is that with two people dead and three others wounded, all victims of 28-year-old Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist released early on licence from his prison sentence a year ago, serious questions are being asked: why was he released on licence, was he under surveillance by MI5 and the police, if not why not, was he part of a broader radicalised group, why did he target those attending the special conference on the rehabilitation of prisoners at the Fishmongers' Hall, near London Bridge, how did he manage to take into the conference two large knives and a fake suicide belt without being security-checked, had he been planning this attack for a long time, had he duped the authorities by pretending that he was a new man determined to cast off his terrorist past, and, lastly, did the police have no choice but to shoot him dead even though he had been restrained by heroic members of the public before they arrived? The aftermath of a terrorist attack is always uncomfortable for the security authorities because it is difficult to avoid asking these questions. MI5 has expanded its workforce significantly in recent years but, as I have pointed out in the past, it is never possible to follow every terrorist suspect or terrorism supporter. Every day priorities have to be made. In the case of Usman Khan he had been released in December last year and as far as is known he was trying to put his past beind him. Or at least, he appeared to be interested in rehabilitation and had not been spotted engaging in anything suspicious. But he was a known terrorist. He had been part of a gang which plotted to blow up the London Stock Exchange. So surely he was on some form of watch list even if he was not regarded as high-risk? It may have looked like he was trying to lead a normal life but one has to ask: can a person like Usman Khan who had mingled with other terrorist-minded individuals in the past ever be a normal person with normal ambitions and hopes? Would there not always have been a dark corner in his mind, and after serving time in prison might there not have been a growing urge for revenge? Should MI5 and the police take this sort of possibility into account when selecting which individuals to watch and follow and which to put in a lower-risk category? Unless MI5 and the police have seriously messed up and ignored signs that were clearly available, I don't think they should be blamed for failing to mount 24-hour surveillance on Usman Khan. That would be unjust. But unquestionably very serious questions have to be asked about the justice system which allows a man like this to be released early when a judge in his original trial stated that he posed a danger to the public. How right he was and how wrong were those who decided that it was ok to free him on licence. That's where the blame lies in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. But Usman Khan, shot dead by the police because, I assume, they judged him still to be a threat to life, is the only one to blame for this latest appalling slaughter on our streets.

The backwash from the US Navy Seals saga

MY ANALYSIS IN THE TIMES The US Navy Seals saga has driven divisions between the top officer class and lower ranks, pitted Pentagon leaders against their commander-in-chief and narrowed the separation between politics and the military. President Trump’s intervention in support of the highly decorated veteran Seal operator Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher has also led to anguished reappraisals of a special forces community which has in the past relied on secrecy and anonymity.There had been plans to expand the Seals organisation, creating more combat platoons to deal with the ever-increasing demand for their unique talents around the world.That has now been put on hold while the Seals command hierarchy examines whether the elite units are adequately trained in leadership skills, following a series of headline disciplinary breaches. CPO Gallagher’s photograph next to the body of a young Iraqi prisoner was not the only breach in accepted conduct. However, the case of CPO Gallagher who retires tomorrow (Saturday) posed the greatest dilemma, not just because of the president’s outrage over the way the US Navy had handled the war crimes charges against him, but because the publicity it generated disrupted strictly regulated internal procedures which military chiefs and Pentagon officials felt should not be undermined by political interference. The result is that US Navy chiefs in particular will now be more wary than ever of the need to avoid Mr Trump’s displeasure. He had already castigated them for failing to resolve technical problems with the new-generation Gerald R Ford class aircraft carrier. By contrast, the president’s support for CPO Gallagher and his pardoning of two soldiers charged with war crimes, one of whom had already served more than six years of a 19-year sentence, went down well with the troops. Knowing they have their commander-in-chief on their side will increase Mr Trump’s popularity across the military. Polls among armed service personnel consistently show majority support for the president. Only their commanding officers will be worried at White House political intrusion. General Jim Mattis, ousted by Mr Trump as defence secretary, remarked last month that he had earned his spurs on the battlefield while the president had “earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor”. However, the fact that Mr Trump was given a medical deferment from serving in the military in the Vietnam war because of bone spurs has had little if any impact on his popularity among troops. Above all, Mr Trump has reemphasised in the boldest possible terms that as commander-in-chief he has the right to intervene because he is at the top of the chain of command. It has been a grim reminder for the Pentagon.

Will Brexit actually ever happen?

Top of the list of priorities in the Conservative party's election manifesto is to "get Brexit done". These three words are drilled into all of us as if there is nothing else more important in the world. In some respects it's true because Brexit or no Brexit, the future of this country depends on a final resolution to the European question. But is Brexit going to be done just like that if Boris wins a mandate in the election which some polls seem to be taking as read. Those very helpful politicians who make up the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland have made it clear today in their manifesto that no no no they won't accept the Boris Brexit deal as it is currently drafted for reasons which I am sure I don't need to spell out. Basically any wording which even smells of a requirement for border-type checks on goods to keep the EU happy will meet their disapproval. So if Boris sweeps into power with a new mandate on December 12 - just two weeks away - he is going to be confronted by the DUP with their shaking heads and cries of "over my dead body". So Brexit won't get done. There will be endless negotiations because the DUP will be supported by the dreaded European Research Group of mad Tory Brexiteers. Deadlines will be breached. Brexit will simper on and the country will yawn to death and businesses will go potty and Boris will stamp his feet. As the months go by there might well be a new surge of feeling in the country that perhaps after all the Lib Dems got it right and that the exit from Europe should just be cancelled. Could Boris ever countenance that? I guess not, but as a Remainer I'm still wishfully-thinking.

Will the elite US Navy Seals be damaged by the Eddie Gallagher saga?

When Osama bin Laden was shot dead at his compound hideaway outside Abbottabad in Pakistan by American special operations commandos, the US Navy Seals, and in particular Seal Team 6 which carried out the mission in May 2011, enjoyed the sort of limelight which rarely comes their way. They became legendary overnight. For these sort of covert troops, limelight is not something which they normally encourage. Like spies they need to operate in the shadows. But there was so much pride and excitement throughout the US, and around the world, that it was impossible to keep the operational details secret for long. Only the identities of the raiding party remained classified. Pretty well everything else was publicised ad infinitum. Then things went a bit wrong. One of the Seal Team 6 members, Robert O'Neil, wrote a book in 2014 in which he claimed he was the one who had killed Bin Laden. That caused a right rumpus, not just because he had come out into the open to reveal more about the raid but because he seemed to be seeking personal glory, and money, for being the commando who actually fired the shot that killed the al-Qaeda leader. His claim was disputed, and the revelations in the book can't have been welcomed by his fellow Seals. Now, five years on, the famous Seals have once again been in the news because of war crime allegations against one of their senior members and all the repercussions that followed. Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher, head of Seal Team 7 in Iraq, was accused and acquitted of killing a wounded 17-year-old Iraqi prisoner but convicted of having his photograph taken beside the body and was demoted to petty officer as a result. The brouhaha ever since, with Donald Trump declaring his support for Gallagher and reinstating his higher rank, the decision by the Seal hierarchy to bring disciplinary proceedings against him, Trump's fury, the sacking of Richard Spencer US navy secretary when he tried to intervene without telling his boss Defence Secretary Mark Esper, all of this has put an unwelcome spotlight on the elite special operations unit. Gallagher retires officially on Saturday (November 30) and thanks to Trump's insistence as commander-in-chief, he will retain his much-coveted Trident pin which means he leaves the Seals as an honoured member of one of America's most illustrious military organisations. For the sake of the Seals and their future operations I would hope that the Gallagher saga sinks into oblivion. As General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week, the "case is now closed". Until of course someone from within the Seals pops up and writes a book about it! Literary agents will no doubt be relishing the chance to get their hands on the "true account" of what went on.

Counter-Isis operations in Syria are back in style

When Donald Trump announced he wanted all US troops to withdraw from Syria, everyone with any knowledge of the region warned that as a result Isis would reemerge as a major threat. This was officially confirmed by the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency which produced a report saying basically that the withdrawal of US troops would be good news for Isis. Well of course all of that was true. Syria may be full of different military forces and militia and terrorists but they all have their own agenda and only the US with its Kurdish comrades had one goal and one goal only and that was the destruction of Isis. The Trump decision was not just to please President Erdogan who wanted the green light to invade northern Syria but it seemed to be his view that the US had done enough with destroying Isis and others could get on with finishing off the remnants. Since then the president has changed his mind so many times that it's difficult to keep up. However, now General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, commander of US Central Command who has had to plan his Syria campaign like a juggler with 30 spinning balls, has revealed that combat operations between US troops and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces against Isis are back in vogue. Isis is once more being bashed wherever they turn up in northern Syria. It was only a week or two back that Trump said the troops remaining behind in Syria would be guarding the oil wells in eastern Syria, giving the idea that the 500-600 military personnel would be standing around with their guns ready in case Isis came over the horizon to snatch the oil back. But, thanks to General McKenzie, we now know anti-Isis missions are going ahead as robustly as ever. I assume Trump has been told and that he's happy with the turn-around. Well done General McKenzie I say.

The firing of an honourable man - the US Navy Secretary

The firing of US Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was an act of political abuse of power. Spencer is an honourable man with a long service in the Pentagon who not that long ago was acting defence secretary when Donald Trump was trying to find someone suitable for the top job following the dramatic announcement by Patrick Shanahan, then acting defence secretary, that he was withdrawing his name for the role of Pentagon chief for family reasons. Spencer was never in the frame to be the official defence secretary but he was always well respected by everyone in the Pentagon. Now he has truly fallen foul of a mighty heave-ho battle between the Pentagon and the White House. He lost out because Trump's defence secretary Mark Esper saw which way the wind was blowing and got rid of him before the president declared war on the Pentagon. The massive row had been buildng up steam for weeks, ever since Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher of the US Navy's Seal Team 7 was acquitted of war crimes in Iraq, including the killing by a hunter's knife of a 17-year-old Iraqi prisoner of war. Gallagher was just found guilty of being photographed next to the body of the prisoner for which he was demoted one rank. Trump had espoused his cause from the beginning, tweeting that he was a war hero, and then declaring that as commander-in-chief he had decided to reinstate Gallagher's rank to chief petty officer so that he would get his full pension on leaving the Seals. But that was not the end of the story. The top Seals commander said he planned to summon Gallagher for a disciplinary hearing over his conviction for having his photograph taken next to the dead boy, viewed as a serious offence. Trump was furious and told the Seal boss to get on with his work and leave Gallagher alone. Gallagher's Seals bosses had considered removing his "Trident" pin (badge/insignia), thus making him an ex-Seal. This is where Richard Spencer stepped in. He could see dangers ahead, with the president having an almighty row with the Pentagon and in particular the US Navy. As the civilian head of the Navy it was his responsibility to deal with personnel matters such as this. He wanted the Gallagher case to go away before it caused even more damage, and, unwisely as it turns out, spoke to the White House about a deal: he would allow Gallagher to keep his Trident pin and retire from the Seals without a stain on his character in return for Trump agreeing to stop interfering in military justice matters. Basically Spencer thought it was constitutionally disgraceful and bad for the US Navy for the president to override decisions by Gallagher's superiors. But for future peaceful relations with the White House, he proposed his deal without telling Esper. When this was passed on to Trump I am speculating but I bet he was so angry being told what to do by a lowly navy secretary that he got on the phone to Esper at the Pentagon and told him: "Get rid of this man or else...." Esper jumped. He called in Spencer and said he was very upset that he had gone behind his back to the White House to try and solve the Gallagher problem. He, Spencer, should have gone to Esper not to the White House and therefore he had to resign for failing to keep Esper in the loop over what he planned to do. In the very familiar language used by commanding officers when they sack subordinates, Spencer was told he had lost the confidence and trust of the defence secretary. Actually, David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist and son of a former US navy secretary, revealed today that Esper told Spencer: "Trump wants you out." Spencer wrote aletter to Trump, handing in his immediate resignation, but made no reference to the row with Esper. It was all about his distaste for a commander-in-chief who had different views than him on good order and discipline. So another good man at the Pentagon gets his marching orders. Both Trump and Esper played their roles in removing a senior official who had tried to do his best for the service he loved and respected.

The Bloomberg decision is bad news for Joe Biden

The announcement today by multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg that he will definitely run for president is such bad news for Joe Biden. It must be so tough for the former vice-president. He really thought that 2020 had been earmarked for him, the obvious Democratic candidate to beat Donald Trump and enter the White House to fulfill his dream. Of course there was never any guarantee that he would beat Trump but this was to be his great chance. Basically it has been downhill all the way, despite leading the polls pretty consistently. His rivals began to look good and his often stumbling performance at debates started making his supporters nervous. Above all, there was a growing feelng in some Democrats' minds that the candidate field was just not Trump-beatable enough. Now Bloomberg who has enough money to buy a country or two is firmly in the race. He is already spending millions and millions of dollars on adverts. Can he win the nomination by being the richest candidate? Yes he could because his message will be in everyone's face from now until he either wins the nomination or drops out. Must be nice to be able to spend such huge sums - from his own money, not from donations - and still may be lose the lot. But Bloomberg is going to do serious damage to Biden. The former VP's downbeat campaign was the reason why Bloomberg decided to go for it. That message will hit Biden every time he opens his mouth at a rally. "Bloomberg doesn't think you're good enough!" I doubt Bloomberg will last all the way to the end. But over the months ahead the Bloomberg/Biden rivalry could be a wholesale bust-up, with both losing out. But watch Bloomberg. He is taking a very robust line on Trump, saying the country cannot take another four years of Trumpery. Bloomberg will force the other candidates to follow suit. It's going to get much dirtier.